Chapter XII: Orphic Cosmogony (3)

[93] Ar. _Eq._ 792. Mr R. A. Neil ad loc. points out that πίθος answers to _fidelia_ in etymology, to _dolium_ in meaning.

[94] Dr Sam. Wide, ‘Aphidna in Nord-Attica,’ _A. Mitt._ 1896, p. 398.

[95] _Od._ X. 236.

[96] _Od._ XXIV. 1-9.

[97] Pind. _Ol._ IX. 33

οὐδ’ Ἀΐδας ἀκινήταν ἔχε ῥάβδον
βρότεα σώμαθ’ ᾇ κατάγει κοίλαν πρὸς ἀγυιὰν
θνᾳσκόντων.

ἀκινήταν is usually rendered ‘unraised’ as though the sceptre were lifted in token of kingly power. I translate by ‘wave’ because I believe the action denoted is the waving or moving of a wand, not the raising of a sceptre. The verb κινέω is, I believe, characteristic of this wand-waving. κινέω is used in Homer (loc. cit.) τῇ δ’ ἄγε κινήσας. By Pindar’s time the wand and the sceptre were fused, but he is haunted by the old connotation of magic.

[98] For text, see p. 24, note 2.

[99] Space forbids the discussion of the whole evolution of the kerykeion. It contains elements drawn from both sceptre and rhabdos. The rhabdos is sometimes forked like a divining rod: the forks were entwined in various shapes. Round the rhabdos a snake, symbol of the underworld, was sometimes curled as the snake is curled round the staff of Aesculapius. Ultimately the twisted ends of the rhabdos were crystallized into curled decorative snakes. In like fashion the frayed fringe of the leather aegis of Athene is misunderstood and rendered as snakes. By the time of Eustathius, kerykeion and rhabdos are not clearly differentiated.

[100] _J.H.S._ XX. p. 101.

[101] Plut. _Vit. Cam._ XX.

[102] _Ling. Lat._ 5 § 157.

[103] _Pauli excerpta ex Lib. Pomp._ Fest. s.v. doliola.

[104] _Iliad_ XXIV. 527

δοιοὶ γάρ τε πίθοι κατακείαται ἐν Διὸς οὐδῷ
δώρων οἷα δίδωσι κακῶν ἕτερος δὲ ἑάων.

[105] Fest. 154.

[106] Macr. _Sat._ I. 16. 18.

[107] Harpocrat. s.v. Ἀνθεστ. διὰ τὸ πλεῖστα τῶν ἐκ τῆς γῆς ἀνθεῖν τότε.

[108] _Etym. Mag._ s.v. Ἀνθεστήρια.

[109] _J.H.S._ XX. 115.

[110] _Od._ X. 526.

[111] My view of the primitive significance of the root θεσ, which is perhaps primarily rather _to conjure_ than _to pray_, will appear more clearly when we come to the discussion of the Thesmophoria.

[112] Dr Wuensch in his instructive pamphlet _Ein Frühlingsfest auf Malta_ (Leipzig, 1902) discusses a spring festival of the flowering of beans which he believes to be analogous to the _Anthesteria_, but the rites practised are wholly different. Dr Hiller von Gaertringen (_Festschrift für O. Benndorf_) calls attention to the title _Anthister_ which occurs in an inscription found on Thera, but the inscription is of the second century B.C., the festival of the ‘Anthesteria’ was celebrated on Thera, as indeed wherever there was a primitive population, and _Anthister_ must have borrowed rather than lent his name.

[113] Archbishop Eustathius may have had a dim consciousness of the separable ἀνα when he says ἄνθος ὅτι ἐκ τοῦ ἀναθέειν παρῆκται κατὰ συγκοπήν.

[114] Schol. ad Luc. _Tim._ 43 ἀποφρὰς ἡ ἡμέρα] ... ἦσαν παρ’ Ἕλλησιν ἡμέραι ἀπραξίαν εἰσηγούμεναι παντὸς καὶ ἀργίαν, ἃς ἀποφράδας ἐκάλουν. ἐν ταύταις οὐδὲ προσεῖπεν ἄν τίς τινα, οὐδὲ καθάπαξ φίλος ἐπεμίγνυτο φίλῳ, ἀλλὰ καὶ τὰ ἱερὰ ἀχρημάτιστα ἦν αὐτοῖς. ἐκαλεῖτο δὲ ταῦτα αὐτοῖς κατὰ τὸν Φευρουάριον μῆνα ὅτε καὶ ἐνήγιζον τοῖς καταχθονίοις· καὶ πᾶς οὗτος ὁ μὴν ἀνεῖτο κατοιχομένοις μετὰ στυγνότητος πάντων προϊόντων ἕτερον τρόπον ὃν καὶ τὰ Διάσια στυγνάζοντες ἦγον Ἀθηναῖοι.

[115] Plut. _Q.R._ XXXIV. διὰ τί, τῶν ἄλλων Ῥωμαίων ἐν τῷ Φεβρουαρίῳ μηνὶ ποιουμένων χοὰς καὶ ἐναγισμοὺς τοῖς τεθνηκόσι, Δέκιμος Βροῦτος (ὡς Κικέρων ἱστόρηκεν) ἐν τῷ Δεκεμβρίῳ τοῦτ’ ἔπραττεν;

[116] Plut. _Q.R._ XXV. τῶν μηνῶν τὸν μὲν πρῶτον ὀλυμπίοις θεοῖς ἱέρωσαν τὸν δὲ δεύτερον χθονίοις ἐν ᾧ καὶ καθαρμούς τινας τελοῦσι καὶ τοῖς κατοιχομένοις ἐναγίζουσιν.

[117] Athen. III. 53 § 98 τὸν δὲ μῆνα τοῦτον κληθῆναί φησιν ὁ Μαυρόσιος Ἰόβας ἀπὸ τῶν κατουδαίων φόβων κατ’ ἀναίρεσιν τῶν δειμάτων ἐν ᾧ τοῦ χειμῶνός ἐστι τὸ ἀκμαιότατον καὶ ἔθος τότε τοῖς κατοιχομένοις τὰς χοὰς ἐπιφέρειν πολλαῖς ἡμέραις.

[118] Ovid, _Fasti_ II. 19.

[119] The ceremonies of the Lupercalia have been fully discussed by Warde-Fowler, _The Roman Festivals_, p. 310, and very fully by Mannhardt, _Mythologische Forschungen_, p. 72.

[120] _Julius Caesar_, Act I. Sc. 2, _v._ 6.

[121] Herond. _Mim._ III. 3.

[122] Serv. ad Verg. _Aen._ VIII. 343 nam pellem ipsam capri veteres _februum_ vocabant. Varro (_Ling. Lat._ VI. 13) says that _februum_ was Sabine for _purgamentum_.

[123] Athen. VIII. 11 § 334 F.

[124] 3rd cent. B.C.

[125] That the religion of Dionysos came to Greece at a comparatively late date will be shewn in Chapter VIII.

[126] _Od._ XXIV. 215

δεῖπνον δ’ αἶψα συῶν ἱερεύσατε ὅς τις ἄριστος.

[127] Porph. _de Abst._ II. passim.

[128] Eust. ad _Il._ I. 449 § 132 μετὰ δὲ τὰς οὐλοχύτας αἱ θυσίαι καὶ ἡ ἐν αὐταῖς κρεωφαγία διότι καὶ μετὰ τὴν τῶν ἀναγκαίων τροφῶν εὕρεσιν ἡ τῆς κρεωδαισίας πολυτέλεια καὶ τὸ τῆς τροφῆς ἐπείσακτον εὕρηται.

[129] Prof. Ridgeway (_Early Age of Greece_, vol. I. p. 524) has shown (to me conclusively) that these Homeric Achaeans were of Celtic origin and brought with them from central Europe the flesh-_roasting_ and flesh-eating habits of their northern ancestors.

[130] Athen. I. 46 § 25.

[131] P. II. 10. 1 ἐπὶ δὲ τῇ θυσίᾳ τοιάδε δρᾶν νομίζουσι. Φαῖστον ἐν Σικυωνίᾳ λέγουσιν ἐλθόντα καταλαβεῖν Ἡρακλεῖ σφᾶς ὡς ἥρωϊ ἐναγίζοντας· οὔκουν ἠξίου δρᾶν οὐδὲν ὁ Φαῖστος τῶν αὐτῶν, ἀλλ’ ὡς θεῷ θύειν. καὶ νῦν ἔτι ἄρνα οἱ Σικυώνιοι σφάξαντες καὶ τοὺς μηροὺς ἐπὶ τοῦ βωμοῦ καύσαντες τὰ μὲν ἐσθίουσιν ὡς ἀπὸ ἱερείου τὰ δὲ ὡς ἥρωϊ τῶν κρεῶν ἐναγίζουσι. That the distinction between θύειν and ἐναγίζειν is no late invention of Pausanias is shown by the fact that Herodotos (II. 43) uses the same words and draws the same distinction though with less explicit detail. Speaking of Herakles as god and hero, he says: τῷ μὲν ἀθανάτῳ Ὀλυμπίῳ δὲ ἐπωνυμίην θύουσι, τῷ δ’ ἑτέρῳ ὡς ἥρωϊ ἐναγίζουσι.

[132] P. VIII. 34. 3 καὶ οὕτω ταῖς μὲν (ταῖς μελαίναις) ἐνήγισεν, ἀποτρέπων τὸ μήνιμα αὐτῶν, ταῖς δὲ ἔθυσε ταῖς λευκαῖς.

[133] Eust. ad _Il._ XXIII. 429, 1357. 59 οὕτω καὶ ἅγιος παρὰ τοῖς παλαιοῖς οὐ μόνον ὁ καθαρὸς ἀλλὰ καὶ ὁ μιαρὸς διὰ τὸ τοῦ ἅγους διπλόσημον.

[134] I do not deny that the word can be translated if we are content to vary our rendering in each various case. In the passages already discussed ‘devote’ is perhaps a fair equivalent, because the contrast emphasized is with a sacrifice shared. Sometimes the word may be rendered simply ‘sacrifice to the dead,’ sometimes ‘purificatory sacrifice,’ sometimes ‘expiatory sacrifice.’ No one word covers the whole field. It is this lost union of many diverse elements that has to be recovered and is nameless.

[135] Athen. IX. 78 § 409 E ff. ἰδίως δὲ καλεῖται παρ’ Ἀθηναίοις ἀπόνιμμα ἐπὶ τῶν εἰς τιμὴν τοῖς νεκροῖς γινομένων καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν τοὺς ἐναγεῖς καθαιρόντων ὡς καὶ Κλείδημος ἐν τῷ ἐπιγραφομένῳ Ἐξηγητικῷ. Προθεὶς γὰρ περὶ ἐναγισμῶν γράφει τάδε· “Ὄρυξαι βόθυνον πρὸς ἑσπέραν τοῦ σήματος. Ἔπειτα παρὰ τὸν βόθυνον πρὸς ἑσπέραν βλέπε, ὕδωρ κατάχεε, λέγων τάδε· ‘Ὑμῖν ἀπόνιμμα οἷς χρὴ καὶ οἷς θέμις.’ Ἔπειτα αὖθις μύρον κατάχεε.” Παρέθετο ταῦτα καὶ Δωρόθεος φάσκων καὶ ἐν τοῖς Εὐπατριδῶν πατρίοις τάδε γεγράφθαι περὶ τῆς τῶν ἱκετῶν καθάρσεως. Ἔπειτ’ ἀπονιψάμενος αὐτὸς καὶ οἱ ἄλλοι οἱ σπλαγχνεύοντες, ὕδωρ λαβὼν κάθαιρε ἀπόνιζε τὸ αἷμα τοῦ καθαιρομένου καὶ μετὰ τὸ ἀπόνιμμα ἀνακινήσας εἰς ταὐτὸ ἔγχεε.

[136] Hesych. λουτρόν· τὸ ῥύπαρον ὕδωρ ἤγουν ἀπόνιμμα.

[137] _Bull. de Corr. Hell._ XXIV. p. 258.

[138] Now in the Museum at Chicago. _American Journal of Archaeology_, 1899, pl. IV. The vase presents some difficulties, the discussion of which would be irrelevant here. The figure of Salmoneus madly and sacrilegiously counterfeiting Zeus and holding his thunder-bolt is I think certain.

[139] Fillets are specially characteristic of sacrificial victims. Herodotus VII. 197 describes Athamas as στέμμασι πυκασθείς.

[140] Published by Mr H. B. Walters, _J.H.S._ XVIII. 1898, p. 281, pl. XV. The class of vases known sometimes as ‘Tyrrhenian,’ sometimes as Corintho-Attic, all belong to the same period, about the middle of the sixth century B.C., and are apparently from the same workshop.

[141] Eur. _Hec._ 535.

[142] Omphalos and tomb are in intent the same, see _J.H.S._ XIX. p. 225.

[143] The genesis of the Erinys is discussed later, in Chapter V.

[144] Aesch. _Eum._ 253.

[145] Aesch. _Eum._ 264.

[146] Schol. ad Eur. _Phoen._ 284 διαφέρει βωμὸς καὶ ἐσχάρα. ad 274 ἐσχάρα μὲν κυρίως ὁ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς βόθρος ἔνθα ἐναγίζουσι τοῖς κάτω ἐρχομένοις, βωμὸς δὲ ἐν ᾧ θύουσι τοῖς ἐπουρανίοις θεοῖς.

[147] Porph. _de antr. nymph._ 3 τοῖς μὲν Ὀλυμπίοις θεοῖς ναούς τε καὶ ἕδη καὶ βωμοὺς ἱδρύσαντο, χθονίοις δὲ καὶ ἥρωσιν ἐσχάρας, ὑποχθονίοις δὲ βόθρους καὶ μέγαρα. The _megara_ will be discussed later (p. 125).

[148] Aesch. _Eum._ 106.

[149] Eustath. ad _Il._ I. 459 § 134.

[150] Eustath. § 1057, 37.

[151] Schol. ad Apoll. Rhod. I. 587 τοῖς μὲν οὖν κατοιχομένοις ὡς περὶ ἡλίου δυσμὰς ἐναγίζουσι τοῖς δὲ οὐρανίδαις ὑπὸ τὴν ἕω, ἀνατέλλοντος τοῦ ἡλίου.

[152] Eur. _El._ 514.

[153] Eur. _Ion_ 277

ΙΩ. πατὴρ Ἐρεχθεὺς σὰς ἔθυσε συγγόνους;

ΚΡ. ἔτλη πρὸ γαίας σφάγια παρθένους κτανεῖν.

[154] Eur. _Hec._ 121 τύμβῳ σφάγιον.

[155] Athen. XIV. 22 § 626 καθαρμὸν τῆς πόλεως ἐποιήσαντο σφάγια περιάγοντες κύκλῳ τῆς χώρας ἁπάσης.

[156] Eur. _Supp._ 1296 ἐν ᾧ δὲ τέμνειν σφάγια χρή σ’ ἄκουέ μου.

[157] P. III. 20. 9.

[158] P. IV. 15. 8.

[159] P. V. 24. 10 τοῖς γε ἀρχαιοτέροις ἐπὶ ἱερείῳ ἦν καθεστηκὸς ἐφ’ ᾧ τις ὅρκιον ἐποιήσατο μηδὲ ἐδώδιμον εἶναι τοῦτ’ ἔτι ἀνθρώπῳ. Strictly speaking Pausanias ought to have written ἐπὶ σφαγίῳ, but his meaning is sufficiently clear. τόμια are actually σφάγια, not ἱερεῖα. Eustathius, in discussing the sacrifice of Odysseus to the ghosts in the Nekuia, makes the following statement: ὅτι Ὁμήρου εἰπόντος ἱερήια τὰ ἐν Ἅιδου σφάγια ἐπὶ χοῇ νεκρῶν φασὶν οἱ παλαιοὶ οὐκ ὀρθῶς εἰρῆσθαι τοῦτο, ἐπὶ γὰρ νεκρῶν τόμιά φασι καὶ ἔντομα, ἐπὶ δὲ θεῶν ἱερεῖα. Pausanias in the passage cited above (III. 20. 9) uses θύειν where σφαγιάζεσθαι would be more correct. He makes a sort of climax of confusion when, in describing the ritual of the hero Amphiaraos, he says (I. 34. 5): ἐστὶ δὲ καθάρσιον τῷ θεῷ θύειν, when he should have said τῷ ἥρωι σφαγιάζεσθαι.

[160] _Il._ XIX. 265.

[161] P. II. 34. 3.

[162] Ar. _Ran._ 847.

[163] Virg. _Aen._ III. 120.

[164] P. II. 12. 1.

[165] Aesch. _Agam._ 214.

[166] The full and somewhat revolting details as to how omens were taken from σφάγια do not concern us here; they are given in full by the scholiast on Eur. _Phoenissae_ 1255; see P. Stengel, _Hermes_ 1899, XXXIV. p. 642.

[167] Porph. _de Abst._ II. 51.

[168] Xen. _Anab._ VI. 5. 21.

[169] Aesch. _Sept._ 230

ἀνδρῶν τάδ’ ἐστὶ σφάγια καὶ χρηστήρια
θεοῖσιν ἔρδειν πολεμίων πειρωμένων.

[170] Ammon. p. 72 Valck. θύουσι μὲν γὰρ οἱ σφάζοντες τὰ ἱερεῖα, θύονται δὲ οἳ διὰ τῶν σπλάγχνων μαντεύονται.

[171] The question of σφάγια has been very fully discussed by Dr Paul Stengel in four papers as follows: ‘Σφάγια,’ _Hermes_ XXI. p. 307, 1886; ‘Miscellen,’ XXV. p. 321; ‘Prophezeiung aus der Σφάγια,’ XXXI. p. 479 and XXXIV. p. 642. To this must be added papers by the same author on ἐντέμνειν ἔντομα in the _Zeitschrift für Gymnasial-Wesen_ 1880, p. 743, and in the _Jahrbuch für Philologie_ 1882, p. 322, and 1883, p. 375, and on the winds, _Hermes_ 1900, p. 626. I owe much in the matter of references to Dr Stengel’s full collection of sources, but his conclusions as stated in ‘Die Sakralaltertümer’ (Iwan Müller’s _Handbuch der kl. Altertumswissenschaft_, Band V. Abt. 3) seem to me to be vitiated by the assumption that ceremonies of purification are late and foreign importations.

[172] Apoll. Rhod. IV. 470, trans. by Mr Gilbert Murray.

[173] Since the above was written my attention has been called to Dr J. G. Frazer’s paper ‘On certain Burial Customs as illustrations of the primitive theory of the soul’ (_Journal of Anthropological Institute_, vol. XV. 1885-6). After a detailed examination of the burial rites and customs of the Greeks and many other peoples Mr Frazer reaches the following memorable and to me most welcome conclusion: ‘In general I think we may lay down the rule that wherever we find so-called purification by fire or water from pollution contracted by contact with the dead we may assume with much probability that the original intention was to place a physical barrier of fire or water between the living and the dead, and that the conceptions of pollution and purification are merely the fictions of a later age invented to explain the purpose of a ceremony of which the original intention was forgotten.’

[174] Soph. _El._ 445.

[175] The details described by Suidas s.v. ἐμασχαλίσθη have a somewhat apocryphal air and are probably due to etymology.

[176] Schol. ad Soph. _El._ 445.

[177] P. III. 17. 7.

[178] Plut. _de ser. num. vind._ XVII. μεταπεμφθέντες οἱ ψυχαγωγοὶ καὶ θύσαντες ἀπεσπάσαντο τοῦ ἱεροῦ τὸ εἴδωλον.

[179] Eur. _Or._ 395

ΜΕ. τί χρῆμα πάσχεις; τίς σ’ ἀπόλλυσιν νόσος;

ΟΡ. ἡ ξύνεσις, ὅτι σύνοιδα δείν’ εἰργασμένος.

[180] Suidas s.v. Ἔμβαρός εἰμι, _Paroimiograph._ I. 402, App. Cent. and Eustath. ad _Il._ II. 732 § 331.

[181] Plut. _Vit. Pelop._ XXI.

[182] _Cat._ 422.

[183] _Od._ XI. 23 ff.

[184] For the ceremonials of ghost-raising, see Dr W. G. Headlam, _Classical Review_, 1902, p. 52.

[185] Luc. _Char._ 22.

[186] A. Mommsen (_Feste der Stadt Athen_, p. 486) discusses the Thargelia, Kallynteria and Plynteria in immediate succession, but without a hint of the connection of the two last with the first.

[187] Vaniček (s.v. p. 310) derives Θαργήλια, which appears also in the form Ταργήλια, from a root ταργ meaning ‘hot’ and ‘dry’ and connects it with τρυγ in τρύσκω, τρυγάω etc. All these analogous forms have the same meaning, i.e. ‘ripened by the sun,’ ‘ready for harvesting.’

[188] Athen. III. 52 § 115 θάργηλον καλεῖσθαι τὸν ἐκ τῆς συγκομιδῆς πρῶτον γενόμενον ἄρτον.

[189] Hesych. s.v. θάργηλος χύτρα ἐστὶν ἀνάπλεως σπερμάτων.

[190] loc. cit. supra.

[191] Theocr. _Id._ VII. 31 ἁ δ’ ὁδὸς ἅδε Θαλυσιάς.

[192] Hom. _Il._ IX. 534

ὅ οἱ οὔ τι θαλύσια γουνῷ ἀλωῆς
Οἰνεὺς ῥέξ’.

Eustath. ad loc. θαλύσια δὲ αἱ ἀπαρχαὶ ... τινὲς δὲ τῶν ῥητόρων καὶ συγκομιστήρια ταῦτα καλοῦσιν ... ἔτι δὲ καὶ θαλύσιος ἄρτος ὁ ἐκ τῆς τῶν καρπῶν, φασί, συγκομιδῆς πρῶτος γινόμενος.

[193] The sources for the Eiresione are very fully given and discussed by Mannhardt, _Wald- und Feldkulte_, pp. 214-248; see Dr Frazer, _Golden Bough_, 2nd edition, vol. I. p. 190, for modern parallels.

[194] Ar. _Eq._ 729, schol. ad loc.

[195] Eustath. ad _Il._ XXII. 496, p. 1283 ᾖδον δὲ παῖδες

εἰρεσιώνη σῦκα φέρει καὶ πίονας ἄρτους
καὶ μέλιτος κοτύλην καὶ ἔλαιον ἐπικρήσασθαι
καὶ κύλικα εὔζωρον ἵνα μεθύουσα καθεύδῃ.

[196] Ar. _Plut._ 1054, schol. ad loc. ταύτην δὲ τὴν εἰρεσιώνην πρὸ τῶν οἰκημάτων ἐτίθεντο οἱ Ἀθηναῖοι καὶ κατ’ ἔτος αὐτὴν ἤλλαττον ... ἕκαστος πρὸ τῶν θυρῶν ἔστησαν εἰρεσιώνας εἰς ἀποτροπὴν τοῦ λοιμοῦ, καὶ διέμενεν εἰς ἐνιαυτόν. ἣν καὶ ξηρανθεῖσαν πάλιν κατ’ ἔτος ἐποίει ἑτέραν χλοάζουσαν.

[197] Plut. _Vit. Thes._ XVIII. The account of Plutarch is substantially the same as that of his contemporary Pausanias the rhetorician; both appear to draw from some common source, which may be Krates’ περὶ θυσιῶν: see Mannhardt, _Wald- und Feldkulte_, p. 219.

[198] Harpocrat. s.v.

[199] _Etym. Mag._ s.v.

[200] Suidas s.v. Πύθιον.

[201] Schol. ad Ar. _Plut._ 1054.

[202] Porph. _de Abst._ II. 7. The text contains obscure words, e.g. εἰλυσπόα of which Nauck observes _loci medela nobis negata_, but those translated above seem certain.

[203] _Iliad_ loc. cit. supra.

[204] Aristot. _Eth. Nic._ 1160 Θ. IX. 5 θυσίας τε ποιοῦντες καὶ περὶ ταύτας συνόδους, τιμάς <τε> ἀπονέμοντες τοῖς θεοῖς καὶ αὑτοῖς ἀναπαύσεις πορίζοντες μεθ’ ἡδονῆς. αἱ γὰρ ἀρχαῖαι θυσίαι καὶ σύνοδοι φαίνονται γίνεσθαι μετὰ τὰς τῶν καρπῶν συγκομιδὰς οἷον ἀπαρχαί. μάλιστα γὰρ ἐν τούτοις ἐσχόλαζον τοῖς καιροῖς.

[205] Spencer and Gillen, _Native Tribes of Central Australia_, pp. 167 ff.

[206] A. Lang, _Religion and Magic_, p. 265.

[207] Philoch. ap. Athen. I. 16 § 9 Φιλόχορος δὲ ἱστορεῖ καὶ κεκωλῦσθαι Ἀθήνῃσι ἀπέκτου ἀρνὸς μηδένα γεύεσθαι ἐπιλιπούσης ποτὲ τῆς τῶν ζῴων τούτων γενέσεως.

[208] Fest. § 318 _sacrima_ appellabant mustum quod Libero sacrificabant, pro vineis et vasis et ipso vino conservando, sicut praemetium de spicis quas primum messuissent sacrificabant Cereri.

[209] Plut. _Q. Symp._ III. 7. 1 καὶ πάλαι γ’ ὡς ἔοικεν εὔχοντο τοῦ οἴνου πρὶν ἢ πιεῖν ἀποσπένδοντες ἀβλαβῆ καὶ σωτήριον αὐτοῖς τοῦ φαρμάκου τὴν χρῆσιν γενέσθαι.

[210] Porph. _de Abst._ I. 14.

[211] Porph. _de Abst._ II. 56. The treatise of Porphyry, so far as it relates to sacrifice, is mainly based on the previous treatise of Theophrastos.

[212] Eustath. ad _Il._ I. 449 § 132.

[213] Porph. _de Abst._ II. 20.

[214] Porph. loc. cit. μετὰ δὲ τοὺς οὐλοχύτας αἱ θυσίαι καὶ ἡ ἐν αὐταῖς κρεωφαγία. διότι καὶ μετὰ τὴν τῶν ἀναγκαίων τροφῶν εὕρεσιν ἡ τῆς κρεωδαισίας πολυτέλεια καὶ τὸ τῆς τροφῆς ἐπείσακτον εὕρηται.

[215] Eustath. ad _Od._ III. 440, 1476. 37 ὡς καὶ οἱ οὐλοχύται τῆς παλαιᾶς τροφῆς ἀνεμίμνησκον τῆς τε τῶν οὐλῶν, ὅπερ ἐστὶ τῶν κριθῶν, διὸ καὶ τοὺς οὐλοχύτας τῶν τις παλαιῶν κριθὰς ἡρμήνευσεν.

[216] Strato ap. Athen. IX. 29 § 382.

[217] For a full discussion of οὐλαί and οὐλοχύται see Dr H. von Fritze, _Hermes_ 1897, p. 236.

[218] Eustath. ad _Il._ I. 449 § 132, 23 εἰσὶ δὲ οὐλοχύται ... τὰ προθύματα ... οἱ οὐλοχύται οὐλαὶ ἦσαν τουτέστι κριθαὶ μετὰ ἁλῶν ἃς ἐπέχεον τοῖς βωμοῖς πρὸ τῆς ἱερουργίας.

[219] Eur. _El._ 804

λαβὼν δέ προχύτας μητρὸς εὐνέτης σέθεν
ἔβαλλε βωμούς, τοιάδ’ ἐννέπων ἔπη.

[220] Athen. XIV. 81 § 661.

[221] Hom. _Od._ IV. 761.

[222] Plut. _Q. Gr._ VI.

[223] Ar. _Av._ 622.

[224] Athen. IV. 14 § 137.

[225] Hom. _Il._ XVIII. 560.

[226] The process of primitive bread-making is fully discussed by Prof. Benndorf (_Eranos Vindobensis_, p. 374), to whom I am indebted for the view here expressed. In Yorkshire within my own remembrance a rather repulsive mess of corn stewed in milk with currants was always eaten on Christmas Eve before the regular feast began. It was served as soup and called _frummety_.

[227] Eustath. ad _Il._ XVIII. 563 τὸ δὲ παλύνειν ἄλφιτα οὐδὲ νῦν δηλοῖ ἀρτοποιΐαν ἀλλὰ τὸ ἐπίπασμα σύνηθες ὂν τοῖς παλαιοῖς, and again in discussing the feast of Eumaeus (§ 1751, 33) ὁ δ’ ἄλφιτα λευκὰ ἐπάλυνεν, ὅ ἐστιν ἐπέπασε κατὰ ἔθος ἀρχαῖον τὸ ὕστερον ἀργῆσαν.

[228] Varro _L.L._ V. 106 libum quod ut libaretur. The Latin _puls_ and _polenta_ are probably from the same root as πέλανος. Pliny (_N.H._ XVIII. 19) says it is clear that in ancient days _pulte non pane Romanos vixisse_. He adds that to his day primitive rites and those on birthdays are carried on with _pulse_.

[229] Aesch. _Pers._ 204 ἀποτρόποισι δαίμοσι, and 523 γῇ τε καὶ φθιτοῖς δωρήματα.

[230] Sannyr. frg. 1 Koch.

[231] The sources for νηφάλια are well collected and discussed by Dr von Fritze, _De Libatione veterum Graecorum_, Berlin 1893, also by Stengel, _Hermes_ XXII. p. 645, and ‘Chthonische und Totenkult’ in _Festschrift für Friedländer_, p. 418, and W. Barth, ‘Bestattungsspende bei den Griechen,’ _Neue Jahrbücher für klass. Altertüm._ 1900, p. 177. W. Barth draws distinctions between the cultus of the dead and that of chthonic divinities, which I think cannot be clearly made out.

[232] Aesch. _Pers._ 607.

[233] Plut. _Q.R._ XX. οἶνον δ’ αὐτῇ σπένδουσι γάλα προσαγορεύουσαι.

[234] Macr. I. 12. 25 quod vas in quo vinum inditum est mellarium nominetur et vinum lac nuncupetur.

[235] Soph. _Oed. Col._ 468.

[236] Aesch. _Eum._ 104.

[237] Aesch. _Eum._ 727.

[238] P. II. 11. 3. The relation between the Semnae and the Eumenides and the ritual of the Semnae, which is identical with that of the Eumenides, will be discussed later in Chapter V.

[239] Schol. ad _Oed. Col._ 100.

[240] Porph. _de antr. Nymph._ 7.

[241] Emped. frg. ap. Porph. _de Abst._ II. 21.

[242] Some further points as to the Nephalia will be considered in relation to the Eleusinian ritual (p. 150), and the Orphic mysteries (Chapter X.).

[243] Eustath. ad _Il._ I. 52. For a full discussion of the purport of cremation see Prof. Ridgeway, _Early Age of Greece_ I. p. 540.

[244] Porph. _de Abst._ II. 5.

[245] Diog. Laert. VIII. 13.

[246] P. VIII. 42. 5.

[247] Pind. _Ol._ VII. 47, schol. ad loc.

[248] Philostrat. _Eik._ II. 27 § 852.

[249] Diod. V. 56.

[250] P. VIII. 2. 2.

[251] Harpocrat. s.v. φαρμακός.

[252] Diog. Laert. II. 4.

[253] Classical sources for the _pharmakos_ are most fully enumerated by Mannhardt, _Myth. Forschungen_, pp. 123, 133. For primitive analogies see Frazer, _Golden Bough_, 2nd ed., vol. III. p. 93, from whom I have taken the instances adduced.

[254] Ar. _Ran._ 734.

[255] Ar. frg. 532.

[256] Ar. _Eq._ 1405.

[257] Lys. _c. Andok._ 108. 4: νῦν οὖν χρὴ νομίζειν τιμωρουμένους καὶ ἀπαλλαττομένους Ἀνδοκίδου τὴν πόλιν _καθαίρειν_ καὶ _ἀποδιοπομπεῖσθαι_ καὶ φαρμακὸν ἀποπέμπειν καὶ ἀλιτηρίου ἀπαλλάττεσθαι, ὡς ἓν τούτων οὗτός ἐστι.

[258] Fragments of Hipponax (6th cent. B.C.) incorporated by Tzetzes _Hist._ 23. 726-756:

Τί τὸ κάθαρμα;
ὁ φαρμακὸς τὸ κάθαρμα τοιοῦτον ἦν τὸ πάλαι.
ἂν συμφορὰ κατέλαβε πόλιν θεομηνίᾳ,
εἴτ’ οὖν λιμὸς εἴτε λοιμὸς εἴτε καὶ βλάβος ἄλλο,
τῶν πάντων ἀμορφότερον ἦγον ὡς πρὸς θυσίαν
εἰς καθαρμὸν καὶ φάρμακον πόλεως τῆς νοσούσης.
εἰς τόπον δὲ τὸν πρόσφορον στήσαντες τὴν θυσίαν
τυρόν τε δόντες τῇ χειρὶ καὶ μᾶζαν καὶ ἰσχάδας,
ἑπτάκις γὰρ ῥαπίσαντες ἐκεῖνον εἰς τὸ πέος
σκίλλαις, συκαῖς ἀγρίαις τε καὶ ἄλλοις τῶν ἀγρίων,
τέλος πυρὶ κατέκαιον ἐν ξύλοις τοῖς ἀγρίοις,
καὶ τὸν σποδὸν εἰς θάλασσαν ἔρραινον καὶ ἀνέμους
καὶ καθαρμὸν τῆς πόλεως ὡς ἔφην τῆς νοσούσης.

ὁ δέ Ἱππῶναξ ἄριστα σύμπαν τὸ ἔθος λέγει

1 _πόλιν καθαίρειν καὶ κράδῃσι βάλλεσθαι_ (φαρμακόν),

καὶ ἀλλαχοῦ δέ πού φησι πρώτῳ ἰάμβῳ γράφων

2 _βάλλοντες ἐν λειμῶνι καὶ ῥαπίζοντες_
_κράδῃσι καὶ σκίλλῃσιν ὥσπερ φαρμακὸν._

καὶ πάλιν ἄλλοις τόποις δὲ ταῦτά φησι κατ’ ἔπος

3 _δεῖ δ αὐτὸν ἐς φαρμακὸν ἐκποιήσασθαι._

4 _κἄφη παρέξειν ἰσχάδας τε καὶ μᾶζαν_
_καὶ τυρὸν οἷον ἐσθίουσι φαρμακοί._

5 _πάλαι γὰρ αὐτοὺς προσδέχοντα(ι) χάσκοντες_
_κράδας ἔχοντες ὡς ἔχουσι φαρμακοί._

καὶ ἀλλαχοῦ δέ πού φησιν ἐν τῷ αὐτῷ ἰάμβῳ

6 _λιμῷ γένηται ξηρὸς ὡς ἐν τῷ θυμῷ_
_φαρμακὸς ἀχθεὶς ἑπτάκις ῥαπισθείη._

[259] Hippon. frg. 11 (4) ὡς οἱ μὲν ἅγεϊ Βουπάλῳ κατηρῶντο.

[260] Hellad. ap. Phot. _Bibl._ c. 279, p. 534.

[261] Hesych. s.v. κραδίης νόμος.

[262] Plin. _N.H._ XX. 9. 39.

[263] Diosc. _de mat. med._ II. 202.

[264] Luc. _Nek._ 7 ἐκάθηρέ τε με καὶ ἀπέμαξε καὶ περιήγνισε δᾳδίοις καὶ σκίλλῃ.

[265] Theocr. _Id._ VII. 104, schol. ad loc.

[266] Ar. _Ran._ 620.

[267] Luc. _Indoct._ 1.

[268] Schol. ad Ar. _Eq._ 1136.

[269] Harpocrat. s.v. φαρμακός· ὅτι δὲ ὄνομα κύριόν ἐστιν ὁ φαρμακός, ἱερὰς δὲ φιάλας τοῦ Ἀπόλλωνος κλέψας καὶ ἁλοὺς ὑπὸ τῶν περὶ τὸν Ἀχιλλέα κατελεύσθη, καὶ τὰ τοῖς Θαργηλίοις ἀγόμενα τούτων ἀπομιμήματά ἐστιν, Ἴστρος ἐν πρώτῳ τῶν Ἀπόλλωνος ἐπιφανειῶν εἴρηκεν.

[270] For these modern savage analogies and many others see Dr Frazer, _Golden Bough_, 2nd ed., vol. III. p. 93.

[271] Plut. _de Is. et Os._ LXXIII. ζῶντας ἀνθρώπους κατεπίμπρασαν ὡς Μανεθὼς ἱστόρηκε Τυφωνίους καλοῦντες καὶ τὴν τέφραν αὐτῶν λικμῶντες ἠφάνιζον καὶ διέσπειρον.

[272] Clem. Al. _Protr._ XII. 118 φύγωμεν οὖν τὴν συνήθειαν ... ἄγχει τὸν ἄνθρωπον, τῆς ἀληθείας ἀποτρέπει, ἀπάγει τῆς ζωῆς, πάγις ἐστὶν βάραθρόν ἐστιν βόθρος ἐστὶ λίκνον ἐστίν, κακὸν ἡ συνήθεια.

[273] Lev. xvi. 21, and for the Egyptian scape-animal see Herod. II. 39.

[274] Plut. _Q. Symp._ VI. 8.

[275] My attention was kindly drawn to this vase by M. Perdrizet who proposes shortly to publish it. Suidas (s.v. εἴδωλον) seems to refer to the Charila ceremony, κελεύει ἡ Πυθία εἴδωλόν τι πεπλασμένον εἰς ὄψιν γυναικὸς μετέωρον ἐξαρτᾶν καὶ ἀνερρώσθη ἡ πόλις. For this and the _oscilla_ ceremonies and the analogy of Artemis ἀπαγχομένη (P. VIII. 23. 7) see Lobeck, _Aglaoph._ p. 175. The beating of the female slave in the temple of Leucothea (Plut. _Q.R._ XVI.) seems to have been based on a racial taboo, but a φαρμακός ceremony may underlie it.

[276] Serv. ad Verg. _Aen._ III. 75.

[277] For a full and very interesting discussion of the etymology and meaning of φαρμακός, see Osthoff, ‘Allerhand Zauber etymologisch beleuchtet,’ Bezzenberger, _Beiträge_ XXIV. p. 109. As to the accentuation of the word φαρμακός Eustathius (1935. 15) notes that it was proparoxytone ‘among the Ionians.’

[278] As to the god worshipped at the Thargelia it is probable that when godhead came to be formulated Demeter Chloe long preceded Apollo. Diogenes Laertius (II. 44) notes that on the sixth day of Thargelia when the Athenians purified the city, sacrifice was done to Demeter Chloe. Here as elsewhere Apollo took over the worship of an Earth-goddess.

[279] Herod. VII. 197. My attention was drawn to this passage and its importance as reflecting the attitude of the Greek mind towards Human Sacrifices by Dr A. W. Verrall.

[280] Porphyr. _de Abst._ II. 53-56.

[281] My account of the Bouphonia is taken from Dr Frazer’s summary, which is exactly based on the complex double account given by Porphyry from Theophrastos (Porphyr. _de Abst._ II. 29 seq.) and Aelian (_V.H._ VIII. 3). With Dr Frazer’s exhaustive commentary (_Golden Bough_, 2nd ed. vol. II. p. 295) I am in substantial agreement, save that I do not see in the murdered ox the representative of the Corn Spirit. The Bouphonia as ox-_murder_ was first correctly explained by Prof. Robertson Smith (_Religion of the Semites_, p. 286 ff.). I have discussed it previously in _Mythology and Monuments of Ancient Athens_, p. 424 ff.: see also Dr Paul Stengel, _Rhein. Mus._ 1897, p. 187. With Dr von Prott’s view (_Rhein. Mus._ 1897, p. 187) that the sense of guilt in the sacrifice arises from the fact that the ox was the surrogate of a human victim I wholly disagree.

[282] It is possible that Dipolia is etymologically not festival of Zeus Polieus but festival of the Plough Curse, see p. 23.

[283] Ar. _Nub._ 984.

[284] The scholiast is (so far as I know) the only authority who gives the female form. It is possible that the sacrifice may have been primarily to an earth-goddess and hence the animals are female. The curious ceremonial of the _Chthonia_ (P. II. 35. 3) was a similar butchery of cows in honour of Chthonia and presided over by old women who did the actual slaughter, and no man native or foreigner was allowed to see it.

[285] P. V. 27. 6.

[286] Diod. I. 91 καθαπερεὶ τὸ μύσος εἰς ἐκεῖνον τρεπόντων.

[287] Plut. _De defect. orac._ XIV., the text is in places corrupt.

[288] I have elsewhere (_J.H.S._ XIX. 1899, p. 223) stated that the word ‘Stepterion’ cannot to my thinking be translated ‘Festival of Crowning.’ This explanation rests only on Aelian (_Hist. An._ XII. 34), and purification (κάθαρσις, ἔκθυσις), not crowning, is the main gist of the ceremonies. The name Stepterion, is, I suspect, connected with the enigmatic στέφη and στέφειν as occurring in Aesch. _Choeph._ 94, Soph. _Ant._ 431, _Elec._ 52, 458, and means in some way purification.

[289] Other instances are given Ael. _Hist. An._ XII. 34, Philostr. _Im._ II. 24. 850. For analogous Roman Festivals see Regifugium and Poplifugia, Warde-Fowler, _Roman Festivals_, pp. 327 and 174. For the Stepterion and savage analogies see Dr Frazer, _Pausanias_, vol. III. p. 53.

[290] Plut. _Vit. Alc._ XXXIV.

[291] Poll. _On._ VIII. 141.

[292] Phot. s.v. Καλλυντήρια.

[293] Plutarch and Photius cannot both be right, but it is unlikely that Photius would give the _sequence_ incorrectly.

[294] Hesych. s.v. σάρματα.

[295] Hesych. s.v. ἡγητηρία· παρὰ ἡγήσασθαι οὖν τῆς τροφῆς κέκληται ἡγητηρία.

[296] Plut. _Q.R._ LXXXVI.

[297] Plut. _Q.R._ XXXII.

[298] Ov. _Fasti_ V. 621.

[299] The whole ceremony of the _Argei_ has been fully discussed by Mr Warde-Fowler (_The Roman Festivals_, p. 111). Abundant primitive analogies have been collected by Mannhardt (_Baumkultus_, pp. 155, 411, 416, and _Antike Wald- und Feldkulte_, p. 276). For the etymology of _Argei_ see Mr A. B. Cook, _Class. Rev._ XVII. 1903, p. 269.

[300] Plut. _Q.R._ LXXXVI.

[301] Ov. _Fasti_ VI. 219-234.

[302] Warde-Fowler, _Roman Festivals_, p. 148.

[303] Frazer, _Golden Bough_, 2nd ed., vol. II. p. 329.

[304] The sources for the Thesmophoria are collected and discussed by Dr J. G. Frazer, _Encyclopaedia Britannica_, Art. Thesmophoria.

[305] II. 171. See also Frazer, _Pausanias_, vol. V. p. 29; Harrison and Verrall, _Myth. and Mon. Anc. Athens_, pp. xxxiv. and 102-105 and 482; A. Lang, _Homeric Hymns_, Introd. Essay and Hymn to Demeter.

[306] Schol. ad Aristoph. _Thesm._ 78. Photius, s.v. and Schol. ad Aristoph. _Thesm._ 585.

[307] Cornut. _de Theol._ 28.

[308] Lucian, _Dial. Meretr._ II. 1, first published and commented on by E. Rohde, _Rhein. Mus._ XXV. p. 549. As the text is not very easily accessible it is given below: θεσμοφόρια ἑορτὴ Ἑλλήνων μυστήρια περιέχουσα. _τὰ δὲ αὐτὰ καὶ σκιροφόρια καλεῖται._ ἤγετο δὲ κατὰ τὸν μυθωδέστερον λόγον, ὅτι ἀνθολογοῦσα ἡρπάζετο ἡ Κόρη ὑπὸ τοῦ Πλούτωνος. τότε κατ’ ἐκεῖνον τὸν τόπον Εὐβουλεύς τις συβώτης ἔνεμεν ὗς καὶ συγκατεπόθησαν τῷ χάσματι τῆς Κόρης. εἰς οὖν τιμὴν τοῦ Εὐβουλέως ῥίπτεῖσθαι τοὺς χοίρους εἰς τὰ χάσματα τῆς Δήμητρος καὶ τῆς Κόρης. τὰ δὲ σαπέντα τῶν ἐμβληθέντων εἰς τὰ μέγαρα κάτω ἀναφέρουσιν ἀντλήτριαι καλούμεναι γυναῖκες, καθαρεύσασαι τριῶν ἡμερῶν. καὶ καταβαίνουσιν εἰς τὰ ἄδυτα καὶ ἀνενέγκασαι ἐπιτιθέασιν ἐπὶ τῶν βωμῶν. ὧν νομίζουσι τὸν λαμβάνοντα καὶ τῷ σπόρῳ συγκαταβάλλοντα εὐφορίαν ἕξειν. λέγουσι δὲ καὶ δράκοντας κάτω εἶναι περὶ τὰ χάσματα, οὓς τὰ πολλὰ τῶν βληθέντων κατεσθίειν· διὸ καὶ κρότον γίνεσθαι ὁπόταν ἀντλῶσιν αἱ γυναῖκες καὶ ὅταν ἀποτιθῶνται πάλιν τὰ πλάσματα ἐκεῖνα, ἵνα ἀναχωρήσωσιν οἱ δράκοντες οὓς νομίζουσι φρουροὺς τῶν ἀδύτων. τὰ δὲ αὐτὰ καὶ ἀρρητοφόρια καλεῖται, καὶ ἄγεται τὸν αὐτὸν λόγον ἔχοντα περὶ τῆς τῶν καρπῶν γενέσεως καὶ τῆς τῶν ἀνθρώπων σπορᾶς. ἀναφέρονται δὲ κἀνταῦθα ἄρρητα ἱερὰ ἐκ στέατος τοῦ σίτου κατεσκευασμένα, μιμήματα δρακόντων καὶ ἀνδρῶν σχημάτων. λαμβάνουσι δὲ κώνου θαλλοὺς _διὰ τὸ_ πολύγονον τοῦ φυτοῦ. ἐμβάλλονται δὲ καὶ εἰς τὰ μέγαρα οὕτως καλούμενα ἄδυτα ἐκεῖνά τε καὶ χοῖροι ὡς ἤδη ἔφαμεν, καὶ αὐτοὶ διὰ τὸ πολύτοκον, εἰς σύνθημα τῆς γενέσεως τῶν καρπῶν καὶ τῶν ἀνθρώπων, ὡς χαριστήρια τῇ Δήμητρι ἐπειδὴ τὸν δημήτριον καρπὸν παρέχουσα ἐποίησεν ἥμερον τὸ τῶν ἀνθρώπων γένος. _ὁ μὲν οὖν ἄνω τῆς ἑορτῆς_ λόγος ὁ μυθικός· ὁ δὲ προκείμενος φυσικός· Θεσμοφόρια καλεῖται καθότι θεσμοφόρος ἡ Δημήτηρ κατονομάζεται, τιθεῖσα νόμον ἤτοι θεσμὸν καθ’ οὓς τὴν τροφὴν πορίζεσθαί τε καὶ κατεργάζεσθαι ἀνθρώπους δέον.

[309] The rites of purification included strict chastity, for the purport of which as a conservation of energy see Dr Frazer, _Golden Bough_, 2nd ed. II. p. 210.

[310] μιμήματα ... ἀνδρῶν σχημάτων, i.e. φαλλοί. Cf. Septuagint, Is. iii. 17. The Arrephoroi are not as I previously (_Myth. and Mon. Ancient Athens_, p. xxxiv.) suggested _Hersephoroi_, Carriers of Young Things. Suidas, it may be noted, has the formally impossible word _ἀρρηνο_φορεῖν. It may have arisen from a paronomasia and seems to point in the same direction as the μιμήματα ἀνδρῶν σχημάτων of the scholiast. On the use of the φαλλός among agriculturalists as a prophylactic against the evil eye and ἐν ταῖς τελεταῖς ... σχεδόν ἁπάσαις, see Diod. IV. 6.

[311] The influence of mimetic ritual on the development of mythology will be considered later, p. 279.

[312] P. IX. 8. 1.

[313] _Nineteenth Century_, April, 1887.

[314] Newton, C. T., _Discoveries at Halicarnassus_, vol. II. p. 383, and _Travels and Discoveries in the Levant_, II. p. 180.

[315] Porphyr. _de antro Nymph._ VI.

[316] VI. 11. 18.

[317] Eustath. § 1387.

[318] Dr Frazer reminds me that Prof. Robertson Smith (_Religion of the Semites_, p. 183) derived μέγαρον from the Phoenician _maghar_, Hebrew _meghara_ ‘a cave.’ The form μάγαρον adduced by Aelian, favours this view; cf. also Photius s.v. μάγαρον· οὐ μέγαρον, εἰς ὃ τὰ μυστικὰ ἱερὰ κατατίθενται· οὕτως Μένανδρος.

[319] Heydemann, _Griechische Vasenbilder_, Taf. II. 3. For a somewhat similar design cf. _Brit. Mus. Cat._ E 819.

[320] Marcellinus on Hermog. in _Rhet. Graec._, ed. Walz, IV. 462. Sopater, _ibid._ VIII. 67. Aristoph. _Thesm._ 80. Dr Frazer kindly suggests to me that the custom of releasing prisoners at the Thesmophoria may be explained as a precaution against the magical influence of knots, fetters, and the like in trammeling spiritual activities whether for good or evil, cf. _Golden Bough_, 2nd ed. I. p. 392 sqq.

[321] Apollod. I. 5. 1.

[322] _Ath. Mitt._ 1899, Taf. VIII. 1.

[323] Plut. _de Is. et Os._ LXIX.

[324] As to the meaning of the difficult word Ἀχαία I can offer nothing satisfactory. It is perhaps worth noting that Athenaeus (III. 74 § 109), on the authority of Semos, mentions a sort of cake called Ἀχαιΐνα, which was made on the occasion of the Thesmophoria; the people who carried it are said to have exclaimed ‘Munch an Achaina full of fat,’ ἐπιλέγοντες τῶν φερόντων ‘Ἀχαΐνην στέατος ἔμπλεων τράγου.’ The scholiast on Ar. _Ach._ 709 says that Demeter got her name of Achaia ἀπὸ τοῦ κτύπου τῶν κυμβάλων καὶ τυμπάνων τοῦ γενομένου κατὰ ζήτησιν τῆς Κόρης, and he may be right.

[325] Plut. loc. cit. πῶς οὖν χρηστέον ἐστὶ ταῖς σκυθρωπαῖς καὶ ἀγελάστοις καὶ πενθίμοις θυσίαις εἰ μήτε παραλιπεῖν τὰ νενομισμένα καλῶς ἔχει, μήτε φύρειν τὰς περὶ θεῶν δόξας καὶ συνταράττειν ὑποψίαις ἀτόποις;

[326] Hesych. s.v. δίωγμα.

[327] Suid. s.v.

[328] Hesych. s.v. ζημία· θυσία τις ἀποδιδομένη ὑπὲρ τῶν γενομένων ἐν Θεσμοφορίοις. It is possible, I think, that ζημία may conceal some form connected with Damia.

[329] Plut. _Q. Gr._ XXXI.

[330] IX. 26.

[331] Athen. II. 26 § 46.

[332] Is. _Pyrr. Hered._ 80.

[333] Clem. Al. _Protr._ II. 17, p. 14, δι’ ἣν αἰτίαν ἐν τοῖς Θεσμοφορίοις μεγαρίζοντες* (μεγάροις ζῶντας, Lobeck) χοίρους ἐμβάλλουσιν. ταύτην τὴν μυθολογίαν αἱ γυναῖκες ποικίλως κατὰ πόλιν ἑορτάζουσιν Θεσμοφόρια, Σκιροφόρια, Ἀρρητοφόρια ποικίλως τὴν Φερεφάττης ἐκτραγῳδοῦσαι ἁρπαγήν.

[334] I. 27. 3.

[335] Trans. J. G. Frazer. Dr Frazer in his commentary on the passage, vol. II. p. 344, enumerates the other sources respecting the Arrephoroi; see also Harrison and Verrall, _Mythology and Monuments of Ancient Athens_, pp. xxxii and 512.

[336] Dr Frazer draws my attention to the curiously analogous ritual practised at Lanuvium, in a grove near the temple of the Argive Hera, described by Aelian (_Hist. An._ XI. 16) and Propertius (IV. 8. 3 sqq.). Once a year sacred maidens descended with bandaged eyes into a serpent’s cave and offered it a barley cake. If the serpent ate of the cake the people rejoiced, taking it to show that the girls were pure maidens and that the year’s crops would be good:

Si fuerint castae, redeunt in colla parentum;
Clamantque agricolae Fertilis annus erit.

[337] _C.I.A._ III., No. 19.

[338] _C.I.A._ III., Nos. 318, 319.

[339] _B.M. Cat._ E 418, see _Myth. and Mon. Anc. Athens_, p. xxxii.

[340] ἄρρητα ἱερὰ ... μιμήματα δρακόντων καὶ ἀνδρῶν σχημάτων, see p. 122, note 2.

[341] For various views of the Skirophoria, see Robert, _Hermes_ XX. 394; Rohde, _Kleine Schriften_, p. 371; A. Mommsen, _Philolog._ L. p. 123.

[342] Ar. _Thesmoph._ 834.

[343] _C.I.A._ II. p. 422, n. 573 b.

[344] Ar. _Eccles._ 18.

[345] Ar. _Vesp._ 925.

[346] A. Mommsen, ‘Die Attischen Skira-Gebräuche,’ _Philolog._ L. p. 123.

[347] Plin. _N.H._ XVII. 29. 2.

[348] Hesych. s.v.

[349] Ar. _Thesm._ 533.

[350] Plut. _Vit. Rom._ sub fin.

[351] Schol. ad Theocr. _Id._ IV. 25 τὰς νομίμους βίβλους καὶ ἱερὰς ὑπὲρ τῶν κορυφῶν αὐτῶν ἀνετίθεσαν καὶ ὡσανεὶ λιτανεύσουσαι ἀπήρχοντο εἰς Ἐλευσῖνα.

[352] See supra, p. 121 sq.

[353] Sixteen similar figures with feet and hands tightly bound, and in some cases the arms pierced by nails, were recently found on the site of the ancient Palestrina, see _Egypt Exploration Fund Quarterly Statement_, p. 332.

[354] R. Wünsch, ‘Eine antike Rachepuppe,’ _Philolog._ LXI. 1902, p. 26.

[355] Migne, _Patrol. Gr._ LXXXVII. 50 περὶ Θεοφίλου τοῦ ἀπὸ μαγείας συνδεθέντος τὰς χεῖρας καὶ τοὺς πόδας.

[356] Theocr. _Id._ II. 18 ff.

[357] The bird ἴϋγξ, supposed to be the wry-neck _Iynx torquilla_, bound on a wheel was a frequent love-charm. It is like the Siren (p. 201) a bird-soul, an enchanted maiden with the power to lure souls. Such enchanters, half-human, half-bird, were also the Keledones, cf. Athen. VII. § 290 E αἳ κατὰ τὸν αὐτὸν τρόπον ταῖς Σειρῆσι τοὺς ἀκροωμένους ἐποίουν ἐπιλανθανομένους τῶν τροφῶν διὰ τὴν ἡδονὴν ἀφαναίνεσθαι. In metaphorical language Siren and Iynx are equivalents, cf. Xen. _Mem._ III. 11. 18; and cf. Diog. Laert. VI. 2. 76 τοιαύτη τις προσῆν ἴϋγξ Διογένους τοῖς λόγοις.

[358] Plat. _Legg._ 933.

[359] Schol. ad Theocr. _Id._ II. 10 τὸν γὰρ χαλκὸν ἐπῇδον ἐν ταῖς ἐκλείψεσι τῆς σελήνης καὶ ἐν τοῖς κατοιχομένοις* ἐπειδὴ ἐνομίζετο καθαρὸς εἶναι καὶ ἀπελαστικὸς τῶν μιασμάτων. διόπερ πρὸς πᾶσαν ἀφοσίωσιν καὶ ἀποκάθαρσιν αὐτῷ ἐχρῶντο, ὥς φησι καὶ Ἀπολλόδωρος ἐν τῷ περὶ θεῶν ... φησὶν Ἀπολλόδωρος Ἀθήνῃσι τὸν ἱεροφάντην τῆς Κόρης ἐπικαλουμένης, ἐπικρούειν τὸ καλούμενον ἠχεῖον. καὶ παρὰ Λάκωσι βασιλέως ἀποθανόντος εἰώθασι κρούειν λέβητα. The reading κατοιχομένοις is doubtful; see Mr A. B. Cook, _J.H.S._ 1902, p. 14.

[360] Poll. _On._ V. 131 περὶ δαιμόνων τῶν ἐπὶ τῶν ἀρῶν. οἱ δὲ δαίμονες, οἱ μὲν λύοντες τὰς ἀρὰς ἀλεξίκακοι λέγονται ἀποπομπαῖοι, ἀποτρόπαιοι, λύσιοι, φύξιοι, οἱ δὲ κυροῦντες ἀλιτήριοι, ἀλιτηριώδεις, προστρόπαιοι, παλαμναῖοι.

[361] W. H. D. Rouse, _Greek Votive Offerings_, p. 339. Dr Rouse says that ‘binding spells’ δέματα ‘are still the terror of the Greek bridegroom.’

[362] C. T. Newton, _Discoveries at Cnidus and Halicarnassus_.

[363] Cato, _de agr. cult._ 134. 3 bonas preces precor uti sies volens propitius mihi liberisque, etc.

[364] Suidas in explaining ἐξάρασθαι says τὸ ἐκτελέσαι τὰς ἀράς, τοῦτ’ ἔστι τὰς εὐχὰς ἃς ἐπὶ ταῖς ἱδρύσεσι τῶν ναῶν εἰώθασι ποιεῖσθαι. It is worth noting that in M.H.D. _segen_ is not only as in modern German _benedictio_ but also _maledictio_, see Osthoff, ‘Allerhand Zauber etymologisch beleuchtet,’ Bezzenberger, _Beiträge_ XXIV. p. 180.

[365] Röhl, _I.G.A._ 497. The whole subject of legal curses has been well discussed by Dr Ziebart, ‘Der Fluch im Griechischen Recht’ (_Hermes_ XXX. p. 57) to whom I owe many references. Also by the same writer in his ‘Neue Attische Fluchtafeln’ (_Nachrichten der K. Ges. d. Wiss. zu Göttingen_, Phil.-Hist. Kl. 1889, pp. 105 and 135), and by R. Wünsch, ‘Neue Fluchtafeln’ (_Rhein. Mus._ 1900, I. p. 62, II. p. 232). Curse Inscriptions are collected in an Appendix to the _Corpus Inscriptionum Atticarum_, under the title _Defixionum Tabulae_.

[366] Dittenberger, _Syll. Inscr._ 879.

[367] _Mon. and Myth. Anc. Athens_, p. 104.

[368] Ar. _Thesm._ 331.

[369] Plut. _Vit. Dion._ 56.

[370] Paroimiogr. I. 388 ὁ γὰρ βουζύγης Ἀθήνησιν ὁ τὸν ἱερὸν ἄροτον ἐπιτελῶν ἄλλα τε πολλὰ ἀρᾶται καὶ τοῖς μὴ κοινωνοῦσι κατὰ τὸν βίον ὕδατος ἢ πυρὸς ἢ μὴ ὑποφαίνουσιν ὁδὸν πλανωμένοις.

[371] Porph. _de Abst._ IV. 22.

[372] Schol. ad Luc. _Dial. Meretr._ VII. 4 Ἑορτὴ Ἀθήνησι μυστήρια περιέχουσα Δήμητρος καὶ Κόρης καὶ Διονύσου ἐπὶ τῇ τομῇ τῶν ἀμπέλων καὶ τῇ γεύσει τοῦ ἀποκειμένου ἤδη οἴνου γινόμενα παρὰ Ἀθηναίοις.

[373] Eustath. ad _Il._ IX. 530, 772 Ἰστέον δὲ ὅτι ἐπὶ συγκομιδῇ καρπῶν ἐφ’ ᾗ καὶ τὰ θαλύσια ἐθύετο ἑορτὴ ἤγετο Δήμητρος καὶ Διονύσου κατὰ Παυσανίαν, ἁλῷα καλουμένη διὰ τὸ ταῖς ἀπαρχαῖς καὶ μάλιστα ἐν Ἀθήναις ἀπὸ τῆς ἅλω τότε καταχρᾶσθαι φέροντας εἰς Ἐλευσῖνα ἢ ἐπεὶ καθὰ καὶ Ὅμηρος ἐμφαίνει ἐν ἅλωσιν ἔπαιζον κατὰ τὴν ἑορτὴν ἐν ᾗ καὶ Ποσειδῶνος ἦν πομπή.

[374] Harp. s.v. Ἁλῷα.

[375] Dem. 59. 116 κατηρήθη αὐτοῦ (τοῦ ἱεροφάντου) καὶ ὅτι Σινώπῃ τῇ ἑταίρᾳ Ἁλῴοις ἐπὶ τῆς ἐσχάρας τῆς ἐν τῇ αὐλῇ Ἐλευσῖνι προσαγούσῃ ἱερεῖον θύσειεν, οὐ νομίμου ὄντος ἐν ταύτῃ τῇ ἡμέρᾳ ἱερεῖα θύειν οὐδὲ ἐκείνου οὔσης τῆς θυσίας ἀλλὰ τῆς ἱερείας.

[376] _C.I.A._ II. 1, n. 471 ἤραντο δὲ καὶ τοὺς βοῦς το[ὺς] ἐν Ἐλευσῖνι τῇ θυσίᾳ καὶ τοῖς προηροσίοις καὶ τοὺς ἐν τοῖς ἄλλοις ἱεροῖς καὶ γυμνασίοις. Cf. Dittenberger, _De Epheb._ p. 77.

[377] The nature of the contest is not clear. Artemidorus (I. 8) says: ταύροις ἐν Ἰωνίᾳ παῖδες Ἐφεσίων ἀγωνίζονται καὶ ἐν Ἀττικῇ παρὰ ταῖς θεαῖς ἐν Ἐλευσῖνι ‘Κοῦροι Ἀθηναῖοι περιτελλομένων ἐνιαυτῶν.’ See Lobeck, _Agl._ p. 206.

[378] Luc. _Dial. Meretr._ VII. 4 ‘τήμερον Ἁλῷά ἐστι, τί δὲ σοὶ δέδωκεν εἰς τὴν ἑορτήν;’ schol. ad loc. Ἑορτὴ Ἀθήνησι μυστήρια περιέχουσα Δήμητρος καὶ Κόρης καὶ Διονύσου ἐπὶ τῇ τομῇ τῶν ἀμπέλων καὶ τῇ γεύσει τοῦ ἀποκειμένου ἤδη οἴνου γινόμενα παρὰ Ἀθηναίοις ἐν οἷς προτίθεται (d. Subject fehlt im Cod.: zu ergänzen ist πέμματά?) τινα αἰσχύναις ἀνδρείοις (sic) ἐοικότα, περὶ ὧν διηγοῦνται ὡς πρὸς σύνθημα τῆς τῶν ἀνθρώπων σπορᾶς γινομένων ὅτι ὁ Διόνυσος δοὺς τὸν οἶνον.... After recounting the death of Ikarios the scholiast continues, ὑπόμνημα δὲ τοῦ πάθους ἡ τοιαύτη ἑορτή. ἐν ταύτῃ καὶ τελετή τις εἰσάγεται γυναικῶν ἐν Ἐλευσῖνι, καὶ παιδιαὶ λέγονται πολλαὶ καὶ σκώμματα, μόναι δὲ γυναῖκες εἰσπορευόμεναι ἐπ’ ἀδείας ἔχουσιν ἃ βούλονται λέγειν. καὶ δὴ τὰ αἴσχιστα ἀλλήλαις λέγουσι τότε, αἱ δὲ ἱέρειαι λάθρα προσιοῦσαι ταῖς γυναιξὶ κλεψιγαμίας πρὸς τὸ οὖς ὡς ἀπόρρητόν τι συμβουλεύουσιν. ἀναφωνοῦσι δὲ πρὸς ἀλλήλας πᾶσαι αἱ γυναῖκες αἰσχρὰ καὶ ἄσεμνα, βαστάζουσαι εἴδη σωμάτων (so die Hs.: der Sinn erfordert σχημάτων genitalium) ἀπρεπῆ (ἀπρεπεῖ die Hs.) ἀνδρεῖά τε καὶ γυναικεῖα. ἐνταῦθα οἶνός τε πολὺς πρόκειται καὶ τράπεζαι πάντων τῶν τῆς γῆς καὶ θαλάσσης γέμουσαι βρωμάτων, πλὴν τῶν ἀπειρημένων ἐν τῷ μυστικῷ, ῥοιᾶς φημὶ καὶ μήλου καὶ ὀρνίθων κατοικιδίων, καὶ ᾠῶν, καὶ θαλασσίας τρίγλης ἐρυθίνου (ἐριθύνου die Hs.), μελανούρου, κωράβου (?καράβου), γαλαιοῦ (γαλεοῦ?). παρατιθέασι δὲ τὰς τραπέζας οἱ ἄρχοντες καὶ ἔνδον καταλιπόντες ταῖς γυναιξὶν, αὐτοὶ χωρίζονται ἔξω διαμένοντες, ἐπιδεικνύμενοι τοῖς ἐπιδημοῦσι πᾶσι τὰς ἡμέρους τροφὰς παρὰ αὐτῶν εὑρεθῆναι καὶ πᾶσι κοινωνηθῆναι τοῖς ἀνθρώποις παρ’ αὐτῶν. πρόσκειται δὲ ταῖς τραπέζαις καὶ ἐκ πλακοῦντος κατεσκευασμένα ἀμφοτέρων γενῶν αἰδοῖα. ἁλῷα δὲ ἐκλήθη διὰ τὸν καρπὸν τοῦ Διονύσου· ἀλωαὶ γὰρ αἱ τῶν ἀμπέλων φυτεῖαι.

[379] _Hom. Hym. ad Cer._ 370.

[380] _v._ 399.

[381] Porphyr. _de Abst._ IV. 16.

[382] The sources for the Eleusinian Mysteries are collected in Lobeck’s _Aglaophamus_. Reference to inscriptions discovered since Lobeck’s days will be found in Daremberg and Saglio’s _Dictionnaire des Antiquités_, s.v. The best general account in English is that by Prof. Ramsay in the _Encyclopaedia Britannica_, in French two articles reprinted from the _Mémoires de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles Lettres_, vol. XXXV. 2nd part 1895, and vol. XXXVII. 1900, entitled ‘Recherches sur l’origine et la nature des Mystères d’Éleusis,’ and ‘Les Grands Mystères d’Éleusis, Personnel, Cérémonies.’

[383] The rites at Eleusis were _probably_ at first confined to women. Dionysios of Halicarnassos (_Ant. Rom._ I. 331) says in speaking of the cult of Demeter in Arcadia, ἱδρύσαντο δὲ καὶ Δήμητρος ἱερὸν καὶ τὰς θυσίας αὐτῇ διὰ γυναικῶν καὶ νηφαλίους ἔθυσαν ὡς Ἕλλησι νόμος ὧν οὐδὲν ὁ καθ’ ἡμᾶς ἤλλαξε χρόνος.

[384] _C.I.A._ III. 5.

[385] Inscr. _A. Mitth._ 1894 p. 163 ὡς ἂν τὰ ἱερὰ φέρωσιν αἱ ἱέρειαι ἀσφαλέστατα.

[386] The exact formulary is preserved by Theon of Smyrna, p. 22, τὸ κήρυγμα τοῦτο κηρύττεται ‘ὅστις τὰς χεῖρας μὴ καθαρός ... ὅστις φωνὴν ἀσύνετος.’ Some authorities think that φωνὴν ἀσύνετος means speaking an unknown, barbarous tongue, others that it meant having some impediment of speech that prevented the due utterance of the sacred formularies. I think the former more probable.

[387] Ar. _Ran._ 354.

[388] Hesych. s.v.

[389] Polyaen. _Strat._ III. 11.

[390] Plut. _de glor. Ath._ VII.

[391] _C.I.A._ IV. 385 d, l. 20 ἐπεμελήθησαν δὲ καὶ τῆς ἅλαδε ἐλάσεως.

[392] Mr R. A. Neil suggested that the same root and idea may lurk in the unexplained _pontifex_, i.e. maker of πομπαί. The connection with _bridges_ is late and fanciful.

[393] Plut. _Vit. Phoc._ XXVIII.

[394] Head, _Hist. Num._ p. 328: on the reverse is Triptolemos in his winged car.

[395] Plat. _Rep._ II. 378 A.

[396] Clem. Al. _Strom._ V. 689 οὐκ ἀπεικότως καὶ τῶν μυστηρίων τῶν παρ’ Ἕλλησιν ἄρχει μὲν καθάρσια καθάπερ καὶ ἐν τοῖς βαρβάροις τὸ λουτρόν.

[397] Clem. Al. _Protr._ II. μυστήρια ... ἀπὸ τοῦ συμβεβηκότος περὶ τὸν Διόνυσον μύσους.

[398] Lyd. _de mens._ IV. 38 Μυστήρια ἀπὸ τῆς στερήσεως τοῦ μύσους ἀντὶ τῆς ἁγιοσύνης. In form μύστης might come from μύω (cf. ἀμυστί), but Mr Gilbert Murray draws my attention to some uses of μυστήριον which point rather to μύσος, e.g. Eur. _Suppl._ 470 λύσαντα σεμνά στεμμάτων μυστήρια and _El._ 87 ἐκ θεοῦ μυστηρίων.

[399] The aetiology of the Hymn and the various ceremonies that gave rise to it are well explained by Mr F. B. Jevons, _Introd. to History of Religion_, Appendix to Chapter XXIV.

[400] I omit altogether the ceremonies of the 17th-18th, the _Epidauria_, as they were manifestly a later accretion; the worship of the Epidaurian Asklepios was formally inaugurated at Athens (see p. 344) in 421 B.C.

[401] Dittenberger, _Syllog. Inscript._ 13.

[402] Clem. Al. _Protr._ II. 18 ἔστι τὸ σύνθημα Ἐλευσινίων Ἐνήστευσα, ἔπιον τὸν κυκεῶνα, ἔλαβον ἐκ κίστης, ἐργασάμενος (? ἐγγευσάμενος) ἀπεθέμην εἰς κάλαθον καὶ ἐκ καλάθου εἰς κίστην. Since the above was written, Dr Dieterich (_Eine Mithras-Liturgie_ p. 125) has shown good reason for supposing that ἐργασάμενος is a euphemism for rites analogous to the ἱερὸς γάμος: see p. 535.

[403] _C.I.A._ vol. IV. p. 203, ll. 68 and 72.

[404] _Annali dell’ Inst._ 1865, Tav. d’ agg. F. Naples, Heydemann, _Cat._ 3358.

[405] Clem. Al. _Protr._ I. 2. 13 Δηοῦς μυστήρια καὶ (leg. αἱ) Διὸς πρὸς μητέρα. Δήμητρα ἀφροδίσιαι συμπλοκαὶ καὶ μῆνις τῆς Δηοῦς καὶ Διὸς ἱκετηρίαι. ταῦτα τελίσκουσιν οἱ Φρύγες Ἄττιδι καὶ Κυβέλῃ καὶ Κορύβασι,—τὰ σύμβολα τῆς μυήσεως ταύτης. Ἐκ τυμπάνου ἔφαγον, ἐκ κυμβάλου ἔπιον, ἐκερνοφόρησα, ὑπὸ τὸν παστὸν ὑπέδυον.

[406] Schol. ad Plat. _Gorg._ p. 123 ἐν οἷς (τοῖς σμικροῖς μυστηρίοις) πολλὰ μὲν ἐπράττετο αἰσχρά, ἐλέγετο δὲ πρὸς τῶν μυουμένων ταῦτα· ἐκ τυμπάνου ἔφαγον, ἐκ κυμβάλου ἔπιον, ἐκερνοφόρησα (κέρνος δὲ τὸ λίκνον ἤγουν τὸ πτύον ἐστίν), ὑπὸ τὸν παστὸν ὑπέδυον καὶ τὰ ἑξῆς. The concluding formulary, which does not occur in the Eleusinian confession, will be explained later (Chap. X).

[407] Athen. XI. 52 § 476.

[408] Athen. XI. 56 § 478 ὅσοι ἄνω τὸ κέρνος περιενηνοχότες. τοῦτο δ’ ἐστὶν ἀγγεῖον κεραμεοῦν ἔχον ἐν αὐτῷ πολλοὺς κοτυλίσκους κεκολλημένους· ἔνεισι δ’ αὐτοῖς ὅρμινοι, μήκωνες λευκοί, πυροί, κριθαί, πισοί, λάθυροι, ὦχροι, φακοί, κύαμοι, ζειαί, βρόμος, παλάθιον, μέλι, ἔλαιον, οἶνος, γάλα, ὄιον ἔριον ἄπλυτον. ὁ δὲ τοῦτο βαστάσας οἷον λικνοφορήσας τούτων γεύεται. I have translated the difficult ἄνω by _aloft_ taking it as referring to the carrying on the head, but see ‘Kerchnos,’ O. Rubensohn, _A. Mitt._ 1898, XXIII. p. 270, to whom I am indebted for many references. The _Kernophoria_ is well shown in the Ninnion pinax in fig. 160.

[409] Ἐφημερὶς Ἀρχ. 1898, p. 61 χρυσοῖ κέρχνοι Γ.

[410] Sèvres Museum, _Annual of British School at Athens_, vol. III. p. 57, Pl. IV.

[411] Athen. XI. 93 § 496.

[412] Procl. ad Plat. _Tim._ p. 293 ἐν τοῖς Ἐλευσινίοις εἰς μὲν τὸν οὐρανὸν ἀναβλέποντες ἐβόων ‘ὕε,’ καταβλέψαντες δὲ εἰς τὴν γῆν ‘κύε.’

[413] Hesych. s.v. Κὸγξ ὄμπαξ· ἐπιφώνημα τετελεσμένοις. Mr F. M. Cornford suggests that the original form may have been Κόγξον πάξ, ‘Sound the conch—enough.’ See also Lobeck, _Aglaoph._ 775.

[414] My position in this matter was stated long ago in an article in the _Journal of Hellenic Studies_ XX. 1899, p. 211, 244.

[415] _Sagesse et Destinée_, p. 76.

[416] _Legg._ XI. p. 937 D τοῖς πλείστοις αὐτῶν οἷον Κῆρες ἐπιπεφύκασιν, αἳ καταμιαίνουσί τε καὶ καταρρυπαίνουσιν αὐτά.

[417] I am indebted for this and many important references to the article on Keres by Dr Otto Crusius in Roscher’s _Lexicon_ (Bd. II. 1148). Dr Crusius’ admirable exposition of the nature of the Keres suffers only from one defect, that he feels himself obliged to begin it with the comparatively late literary conceptions of Homer.

[418] Conon, _Narr._ XLV.

[419] Published and explained as Heracles κηραμύντης by Professor Furtwängler, _Jahrb. d. Inst._ 1895, p. 37.

[420] Berlin, _Inv._ 3317.

[421] _Orph. Hymn._ XII.

ἔλθε μάκαρ, νούσων θελκτήρια πάντα κομίζων·
ἐξέλασον δὲ κακὰς ἄτας, κλάδον ἐν χερὶ πάλλων,
πτηνοῖς τ’ ἰοβόλοις κῆρας χαλεπὰς ἀπόπεμπε.

[422] Ahrens, No. 99 b, Ἡρακλῆς Ἡπιάλητα πνίγων.

[423] s.v. ῥιγοπύρετον.

[424] Roscher, _Lexicon_ s.v. Nosoi p. 459, following Professor Furtwängler. For the whole subject of the demonic cause of nightmare, see Roscher’s Monograph on Ephialtes, _Abhandl. d. K. Sächs. Ges._ Phil.-Hist. Kl. XX. 1900.

[425] Eur. _Phoen._ 950 μέλαιναν κῆρ’ ἐπ’ ὄμμασιν βαλών.

[426] Wolff. Porphyr. _De philos. ex orac. haur._ p. 149 = Eusebius _Praep. Ev._ 4. 23. 3 καὶ γὰρ μάλιστα ταῖς ποιαῖς τροφαῖς χαίρουσι, σιτουμένων γὰρ ἡμῶν προσίασι καὶ προσιζάνουσι τῷ σώματι. καὶ διὰ τοῦτο αἱ ἁγνεῖαι, οὐ διὰ τοὺς θεοὺς προσηγουμένως ἀλλ’ ἵν’ οὗτοι ἀποστῶσι· μάλιστα δ’ αἵματι χαίρουσι καὶ ταῖς ἀκαθαρσίαις καὶ ἀπολαύουσι τούτων, εἰσδύνοντες τοῖς χρωμένοις. The word προσηγουμένως does not so far as I know occur elsewhere, it seems from the context to mean ‘inductively,’ with a view to _induce_ rather than expel.

[427] Stob. V. 22. Λίνου.

κῆρας ἀπωσάμενος πολυπήμονας αἵ τε βεβήλων
ὄχλον ἀνιστῶσαι ἄταις περὶ πάντα πεδῶσι
παντοίαις μορφῶν χαλεπῶν ἀπατήματ’ ἔχουσαι
τὰς μὲν ἀπὸ ψυχῆς εἴργειν φυλακαῖσι νόοιο.
οὗτος γάρ σε καθαρμὸς ὄντως δικαίως †ὁσιεύσει†,
εἴ κεν ἀληθείῃ μισέεις ὀλοὸν γένος αὐτῶν,
νηδὺν μὲν πρώτιστ’ αἰσχρῶν δώτειραν ἁπάντων
ἣν ἐπιθυμία ἡνιοχεῖ μαργοῖσι χαλινοῖς.

[428] Hes. _Erg._ 90

πρὶν μὲν γὰρ ζώεσκον ἐπὶ χθονὶ φῦλ’ ἀνθρώπων
νόσφιν ἄτερ τε κακῶν καὶ ἄτερ χαλεποῖο πόνοιο
νούσων τ’ ἀργαλέων αἵτ’ ἀνδράσι κῆρας ἔδωκαν.

[429] I prefer to read: ἅστ’ ἀνδράσι κῆρες ἔδωκαν, i.e. ‘grievous diseases which Keres gave to men,’ but I have translated the text as it stands, since possibly Hesiod, though he clearly knew of a connection between νόσοι and κῆρες, may have inverted cause and effect. I have already discussed the passage in the _Journal of Hellenic Studies_, XX. 1900, p. 104.

[430] Hes. _Erg._ 94.

[431] Hes. _Erg._ 102. Procl. ad 102 ἐσωματοποίησε δὲ αὐτὰς προσιούσας ἀφώνους ποιήσας ἐνδεικνύμενος ὅτι καὶ τούτων ἔφοροι δαίμονές εἰσιν· οἵτινες δρῶσιν ἀφανῶς ἐπιπέμποντες τὰς νόσους τὰς ὑπὸ τὴν Εἱμαρμένην τεταγμένας καὶ τὰς ἐν τῷ πίθῳ κῆρας διασπείροντες.

[432] Frg. ap. Plut. _Consol. ad Apoll._ XXVI. Τί οὖν; ἆρά γ’ ἡμεῖς τοῦτο διὰ τοῦ λόγου μαθεῖν οὐ δυνάμεθα, οὐδ’ ἐπιλογίσασθαι; ὅτι πλείη μὲν γαῖα κακῶν πλείη δὲ θάλασσα καὶ τοιάδε θνητοῖσι κακὰ κακῶν ἀμφί τε κῆρες εἰλεῦνται, κενεὴ δ’ εἴσδυσις οὐδ’ αἰθέρι. Bergk (_Frg. adesp._ 2 B) points out that Plutarch’s second quotation is an elegiac couplet, and for the MS. αἰθέρι reads Ἀΐδεω. This gives no satisfactory sense. Mr Gilbert Murray reads ἀθέρι a conjecture made certain by a passage in the dialogue ‘Theophrastos’ (p. 399 E) by Aeneas of Gaza, πλήρης δὲ καὶ ἡ γῆ καὶ ἡ θάλασσα καὶ τὰ ὑπὸ γῆν πάντα· καὶ ὡς ἔφη τις τῶν παρ’ ἡμῖν σοφῶν κενὸν οὐδὲν οὐδ’ ὅσον ἀθέρα καὶ τρίχα βαλεῖν.

[433] Simon. Amorg. I. 20.

[434] Aesch. _Suppl._ 684.

[435] Soph. _Phil._ 4.

[436] Theog. 837.

[437] Orph. _Lith._ 268

Λύχνι, σὺ δ’ ἐκ πεδίου ῥόθιόν τ’ ἀπόεργε χάλαζαν
ἡμετέρου καὶ κῆρας ὅσαι στιχόωσιν ἐπ’ ἀγρούς.

[438] Theophr. _De caus. pl._ 5. 10. 4 ἕκαστοι τῶν τόπων ἰδίας ἔχει κῆρας, οἱ μὲν ἐκ τοῦ ἐδάφους οἱ δ’ ἐκ τοῦ ἀέρος οἱ δ’ ἐξ ἀμφοῖν.

[439] ὅπως μὴ προσάψαιτο τοῦ βωμοῦ διὰ τὸ μυρίας ἴσως ἀναμεμῖχθαι κῆρας. This reference I borrow from the Thesaurus of Stephanos s.v., but I have been unable to verify the quotation. The reference as given by Stephanos is Bud. ap. Philon. _V.M._ 3. In connection with fire and fire-places the belief in Keres is not dead to-day. An Irish servant of mine who failed to light a fire firmly declined to make a second attempt on the ground that she knew ‘there was a little fairy in the grate.’ The Ker in this case was, as often in antiquity, a malign draught.

[440] Frg. ap. Eustath. 772. 3.

[441] XIV. 2. 652.

[442] Professor Ridgeway, _Early Age of Greece_ I. p. 177.

[443] As evidence of the evil reputation of Keres Mr Gilbert Murray calls my attention to the pun in Eur. _Tro._ 424 which seems to have escaped the attention of commentators:

τί ποτ’ ἔχουσι τοὔνομα;
κήρυκες, ἓν ἀπέχθημα πάγκοινον βροτοῖς.

‘What name have they? A _Ker_ish name.’ Hermes as _κῆρ_υξ invokes and revokes _κῆρ_ες with his _κηρ_υκεῖον, see pp. 26 and 43.

[444] Theog. 707.

[445] Mimnermus 2.

[446] Pottier _Cat._ 343. P. Hartung, _Philologos_ L. (N.F. IV. 2) Taf. I.

[447] _Cat._ E 290. Cecil Smith, _J.H.S._ 1883, Pl. XXX. p. 96.

[448] _Od._ XI. 398 Τίς νύ σε κὴρ ἐδάμασσε τανηλεγέος θανάτοιο.

[449] _Od._ XII. 158 Ἤ κεν ἀλευάμενοι θάνατον καὶ κῆρα φύγωμεν.

[450] _Il._ IX. 410.

[451] _Il._ XVIII. 535.

[452] _Od._ XIV. 207.

[453] _Cat._ 1682, _Arch. Zeit._ 1882, Pl. 9.

[454] _Cat._ 2157, _Jahrbuch d. Arch. Inst._ I. p. 210.

[455] _Od._ XX. 66

ἢ ἔπειτά μ’ ἀναρπάξασα θύελλα
οἴχοιτο προφέρουσα κατ’ ἠερόεντα κέλευθα
ἐν προχοῇς δὲ βάλοι ἀψορρόου Ὠκεανοῖο,
ὡς δ’ ὅτε Πανδαρέου κούρας ἀνέλοντο θύελλαι.

[456] _Od._ XX. 77

τόφρα δὲ τὰς κούρας ἅρπυιαι ἀνηρείψαντο
καὶ ῥ’ ἔδοσαν στυγερῇσιν ἐρινύσιν ἀμφιπολεύειν.

[457] _Iliad_ XVI. 150.

[458] _Georg._ III. 274

saepe sine ullis
conjugiis vento gravidae, mirabile dictu.

[459] _Bull. de Corr. Hell._ XXII. 1898, Pl. V.

[460] Suidas s.v. Tritopatores. Φανόδημος δὲ ἐν ἕκτῳ φησὶν ὅτι μόνοι Ἀθηναῖοι θύουσί τε καὶ εὔχονται αὐτοῖς ὑπὲρ γενέσεως παίδων ὅταν γαμεῖν μέλλωσιν. ἐν δὲ τῷ Ὀρφέως Φυσικῷ ... ὀνομάζεσθαι τοὺς Τριτοπάτορας Ἀμαλκείδην καὶ Πρωτοκλέα καὶ Πρωτοκλέοντα θυρωροὺς καὶ φύλακας εἶναι τῶν ἀνέμων and supra Δήμων ἐν τῇ Ἀτθίδι φησὶν ἀνέμους εἶναι τοὺς Τριτοπάτορας· Φιλόχορος δὲ τοὺς Τριτοπάτρεις πάντων γεγονέναι πρώτους. τὴν μὲν γὰρ γῆν καὶ τὸν ἥλιον, φησίν ... γονεῖς αὐτῶν ἠπίσταντο οἱ τότε ἄνθρωποι τοὺς δὲ ἐκ τούτων τρίτους πατέρας.

[461] Hipp. Περὶ ἐνυπν. II. p. 14 ἀπὸ γὰρ τῶν ἀποθανόντων αἱ τροφαὶ καὶ αὐξήσεις καὶ σπέρματα.

[462] _Geop._ IX. 3 οὐ τὰ φυτὰ μόνον ἀλλὰ καὶ πάντα ζωογονοῦσι.

[463] _Cat._ B 4.

[464] The full interpretation of the Cyrene vase is due to Mr Cecil Smith, _Journal of Hellenic Studies_ p. 103, ‘Harpies in Greek Art.’ The vase is reproduced and discussed, but only with partial success, by Dr Studniczka in his _Kyrene_ p. 18.

[465] _Cat._ B 104.

[466] P. V. 19. 1 Βορέας ἐστὶν ἡρπακὼς Ὠρείθυιαν, οὐραὶ δὲ ὄφεων ἀντὶ ποδῶν εἰσὶν αὐτῷ.

[467] Würzburg, no. 354.

[468] Reproduced later, fig. 47.

[469] Cecil Smith, _J.H.S._ XIII. p. 112, fig. 2.

[470] _Il._ XXII. 208.

[471] Plut. _Moral._ p. 17 a.

[472] Poll. _Onomast._ IV. 130.

[473] _Post-Hom._ II. 509

δοιαὶ ἄρ’ ἀμφοτέροισι θεῶν ἑκάτερθε παρέσταν
Κῆρες· ἐρεμναίη μὲν ἔβη ποτὶ Μέμνονος ἦτορ
φαιδρὴ δ’ ἀμφ’ Ἀχιλῆα δαΐφρονα.